I have recently come to realize the wickedness of my sinful ways. I have realized that I was inherently wrong in the thread Why God is inherently wrong. I have confessed to a priest, become reborn, and now walk in the light of Jeeesus.

Just kidding... no, this thread is *sort of* a flipping of the aforementioned thread--a look into God's love rather than God's cruelty.

It was inspired by this quote by Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias:

Ravi wrote:What happens when life breaks down?

When there is systemic contradiction?

My name symbolized all that was corrupt to society.

His name symbolized all that was pure.

And I was being hailed in the embrace of the man who was pure.

And these inviolable sanctities were preserved in those ten words.

And it is the de-sacralization of all of these that has put us in the mess that we find ourselves.

Isn't it true, alas it is much worse.

A person may end up believing in anything.

You know, if that human acceptance does so much for you and me.

Think of what it is when God himself puts his arms around you and says

"Welcome home".

What love is this?

It is God's love.

And no other love can be defined until that love has properly been understood.

So the question for this thread: What is God's love? And what does it mean that no other love can be defined until that love is properly understood?

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

what does it mean that no other love can be defined until that love is properly understood?

Perhaps like how first love changes and progresses or regresses, there is a journey and some can find true love. If you first understand Gods love, then you will know when there is true love I.e. between you and a given individual. Like the wise and foolish virgins.

The truth is naked,Once it is written it is lost.Genius is the result of the entire product of man.The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas

God's love is his mercy, if you repent sincerely for your sinful ways then forgiveness is continually granted, provided you actually think your behavior is wrong in some way...if not,then you can do whatever you want....

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

All your responses point to one thing: that you think you know God's love... just kidding, what they point to is: unconditional love. Is that what we're saying? That if we understand unconditional love, then we can begin to define other kinds of (conditional) love? Amorphos, your point seems to be that if you can know what it is to love somebody unconditionally, then you simply have to look for that thing (emotion, state of mind, way of regard another) when it arises under certain conditions and say: yes, that's the same thing.

So then what is unconditional love? <-- And if we define this, does it make sense to say the same definition carries over to conditional love.

gib wrote:So the question for this thread: What is God's love? And what does it mean that no other love can be defined until that love is properly understood?

James S Saint wrote:God is "Reality", "What is", "Your situation". You can blame What is, Your situation, Reality for anything you want, but it governs you, you don't govern it. If you "disobey reality" (aka. "deluded") then, like anyone who ignores reality, you will probably fall into traps that might very well last or repeat for the rest of your life (aka "eternally"). With the help of a "Savior", such traps, especially those arranged by other people, can be released and your bad judgement (aka "sin") be forgiven in the sense that your mistake did not trap you into misery as it would have otherwise (aka "Saved").

One gets loved, forgiven, and saved by arranging that "The Savior" is one's Situation (hence The [Organized] Church).

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

The better question is..why did God create all of this, the sinful people, hell etc when he knew what was going to happen anyways prior to creation. You can say well they had freewill, but he STILL knew what was going to happen despite the freewill.

Seems kind of sadistic

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

mannikin wrote:The better question is..why did God create all of this, the sinful people, hell etc when he knew what was going to happen anyways prior to creation. You can say well they had freewill, but he STILL knew what was going to happen despite the freewill.

Seems kind of sadistic

You have the free will to call Reality a sadist if you like, but seriously .. where is the good in that?

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

your point seems to be that if you can know what it is to love somebody unconditionally, then you simply have to look for that thing

Yes. look and know or intuit it, as if an emotion reflected in each others mirror of the soul. I assume [because I didn’t learn love this way, and so learned only how it goes wrong lol] that a love for a third party which has no conditions, nor added elements which ensue with physicality, that that love would give you the pure thing? So you’d at least get a measure of it as set against that e.g. a lady would intuit when a gentleman’s ‘love’ is not pure or is unbalanced or misdirected. Kind of like it would be the measure perhaps?

The truth is naked,Once it is written it is lost.Genius is the result of the entire product of man.The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas

Amorphos wrote:Perhaps like how first love changes and progresses or regresses, there is a journey and some can find true love.

A. ... you may have just explained why the Biblical Solomon's 'Song of Songs' was written with such erotic implications. Solomon was trying to describe the (un)describable in language the people of his day ... and today for that matter ... could understand and relate to.

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

mannikin wrote:Depends what you mean by God, if you're going by the Abrahamic tradition, then it seems pretty fucking conditional to me...

Sounds a lot like a very popular ... very very popular ... 'scapegoat'.

In the OP "Who Are You" I wrote ...

Individuation ... by far the most populous category ... especially among adults. How many adults continue to "lean" on others ... be it political leaders ... religious leaders ... philosophers ... heroes ... family. How many adults remain incapable of standing on their own and taking responsibility for their personal/individual thoughts, decisions, actions, feelings and so on.

To "lean against" leads to the same result as to "lean on" ... both are obstacles to the process of individuation.

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

so anyways, back to the question...why would God create something that he already knew he was going to punish and then blame it on the creation...

Let me say it one more time:God == Reality.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

mannikin wrote:Depends what you mean by God, if you're going by the Abrahamic tradition, then it seems pretty fucking conditional to me...

Well, let's not be too rash here. The Abrahamic God certainly seems pretty sadistic, but if we're comparing this to a God that seems merciful and compassionate, one has to wonder if there'd be any need for punishment or forgiveness at all. If such a God's love is defined an unconditional, does that mean it's not even conditional on if we sin? On if there is a need for punishment/forgiveness?

It seems obvious that a parent will sometimes need to impose consequence on a child for their actions, but this is not the same as withholding love from them on the condition that they continue to misbehave. Could the cruelty we see in the Abrahamic God simply be God imposing certain consequences for the misbehavior of man though He still loves us unconditionally. (Still seems pretty harsh though, I'll admit).

mannikin wrote:The better question is..why did God create all of this, the sinful people, hell etc when he knew what was going to happen anyways prior to creation. You can say well they had freewill, but he STILL knew what was going to happen despite the freewill.

That's an excellent, though a bit worn out, question. The only ways I've ever come up with to answering it are twofold:

1) Something among the big "omni" words has got to yeild: either God is not omniscient (so he didn't know), not omnipotent (so he may not have been able to help it), or not omnibenevolent (he really is just a sadistic prick).

or

2) God's "love" is not the simple animalistic love that only a hedonist can understand. God doesn't show his love by just making everybody happy (getting rid of all disease, war, prejudice, starvation, etc.). Instead, it is a higher form of love that is expressed in something more sophisticated or refined. For example, to give someone the experience of a lifetime, or to entertain someone with a profound tragedy. <-- Both of these would be rather dull, at best, and defeat the purpose, at worst, if they didn't involve some pain, some adversity. Or to allow someone their freedom of choice, even if that means making bad choices. <-- This may not seem like love if one could know how horrible the choices will be and how much pain and suffering they will cause, but this is part and parcel of being a higher form of love from hedonistic love.

Then again, if a hedonist's paradise is good enough for God's love, then the gains may outweigh the costs after all--it depends on if we all get to go to Heaven in the end anyway--if Heaven really is eternal, then strictly logically speaking, it outweighs pretty much any torment you could put someone through. This is contingent, of course, on the answer to Why God is Inherently Wrong in that many of the questions asked in that thread received potential answers along the lines of: Hell is not eternal. If Hell is eternal, and some souls go there, we may still be able to argue a case for the hedonist's paradise (that is, if more people end up going to Heaven), but it would be a dampened case.

Amorphos wrote:I assume... that a love for a third party which has no conditions, nor added elements which ensue with physicality, that that love would give you the pure thing?

Which reminds me, I wonder what counts as "unconditional". I like to think my love for my children is unconditional. Although one can entertain certain scenarios that put this to the test: what if I find out one day that my daughter really isn't mine, that maybe my ex. cheated on me, got pregnant, and simply let me believe the baby was mine. If I found this out about my daughter, would I love her any less? I hate to say it, but knowing this *might* effect my love for her. I doubt it would mean I would stop loving her, but maybe a little less? Or maybe not (thank God, I've never been in that situation, so I wouldn't know).

Or maybe this: I love you for who you are. <-- Is that unconditional love? What if the person changes, like most of us do over time? Doesn't love require something to love? Some condition, some attribute. Or can we love something/someone for absolutely no reason (just because they're there)? And if so, is it possible for that thing/person to change in such a way that they cease to be that thing/person, as though they might as well have ceased to exist, in which case the original thing you loved isn't there to be loved anymore? <-- This is starting to become the ship of Theseus problem. <-- But that may just answer the question: God's love is so unconditional that it applies to anything that exists period--just because it exists (which *might* include suffering).

God gives you a life, a place with abundant resources and the freedom to decide what to do with it. You can embrace God. You can reject God. You can be a nasty asshole. You can accumulate wealth. You can help people. You can build relationships. You can betray friends and family.

But He also sends messengers who explain that some choices are better for you than other choices. Choices which make this life better, not an 'afterlife'.

In the context of Exaltism, 'God' and 'deities' attribute to the forces of nature - particularly the ones that let you survive. That is God's love to me. The room for everything, our star, our galactic black hole, all of it which fits into the puzzle that allows you and everybody else around you to exist. If God's love was absent, you could not possibly exist. Of course, one might argue that physical things like a star, a black hole, and more cannot love, and to that I would agree, but these unintentional consequences is what led to you be a living thing. We are the Universe's way of observing itself. Life exists because nature inherently wants freedom to exist. The ability to be free is the key characteristic of being alive. Having a choice. Life is a right, like nature is a right, like God is a right.

So, as I said before, God/s cannot intentionally love anyone or anything. But it was God that created the forces of nature that ultimately allowed us to love. God cannot love its creation, but the creation can love its God. Like what Patrick Haley says in his book, "The Spiritual Essence of Religion and Science", we all seek a harmonious loving union with God or the Omniverse. Doing so at this time is futile, as we do not know how to properly develop order and reason in the fundamentals of this being. With that being said, however, I'm sure they'll be environmentalists 500 years from now saying something like, "save the Omniverse!"

To me, God cannot be right nor wrong. It just is. It's impersonal, such as a distant star is to Earth. Its love is unintentional, so it really cannot be called love. If it were, it could only be considered inherent love, which is probably the most primal type of love there is. Inherent love is love that is already obvious from the start. Knowing that all that exists the way it exists could only come from a celestial body like the Omniverse - where all realities could potentially exist - is enough grounds for veneration and worship. God cannot love but without meaning, life can only love with meaning. Life is what gives this a meaning, a purpose, a drive to do something better. God loves innately; life loves intently.

Okay ... that's all I got for now.

"Anybody got a problem with the way I live? I don't want to go to Heaven if I can't get in!"

If I may, I suspect that what God's love means is wrapped up in what Zacharias is calling the embrace of "welcome home". <-- That seemed to be the crux of what he's getting at in the quote above.

I've had visions of the role that life plays in the universe that may shed some light on this:

Evolution is the only process we know of that comes close to microcosms coming out of the macrocosm. It is a process whereby parts of the universe attempt to individuate themselves from the rest of the universe. Every form of life is an individual being acting in semi-independence from its environment. Plants are the only thing that come to mind which are least individuated since they are reliant on being rooted in the ground for survival.

As a pantheist, I see this as a form of escape--a part of God trying to escape itself, to become independent of itself, to be "other".

"Welcome home" must be the experience of death--the experience of being reunited with the source. The biological organism ceased to be the individual it has striven all its life to maintain and returns to dust, scattered back into nature. As a pantheist, I imagine this experience is like something, not a black nothingness than atheists and materialists believe in. If this experience is captured in those two words: "welcome home", and if those two words capture God's love (according to Zacharias), then one can only know God's love in the unification of the self with the universe upon death.

It might be like the love of mother back when we were children, living care free in the safety of home, knowing nothing of the harshness and cruelties of the dog-eat-dog world that our parents went out in it to toil, compete, and sacrifice in order to make the comforts of home possible. It might be like returning to that, a remembering of whence we came, of how things once were.

This comes as a light vision and a dark vision. The darker vision asks the question: why did God want to escape himself in the first place. Is it really that horrible being God? I once said in another thread:

gib wrote:We have become, through our evolution, enormously complex--why?--because that is the lengths which our evolution has gone in order desperately to avoid disintegrating back into nature and its simplicity. We need to do so much--or our bodies do--in order just to keep going as individuate organisms. It's almost like closing oneself into ever tighter quarters such that 90% of the avenues we could otherwise move around in lead to death. It almost seems as though 90% of what we do--or what our bodies do--about 90% of our biological hardware and functionality, is there with the purpose of preventing or avoiding death. The fact that we have become so complex in this is a sign of how much is required to survive.

Why would life put in so much effort unless the alternative was so much worse? But then what does that say about the state of being God?

^ But that's the dark vision. In all likelihood, the light vision seems right: deaths seems like an incredible calm, not a struggle. Rocks, lakes, mountains... those parts of the universe which do not evolve... seem at peace. And when we are in the grave, laying there motionless, we too will be at peace.

This speaks more to our place in evolution than it does to our individual selves. According to this view, we--our conscious selves--are just going along for the ride. None of us actually chose to evolve out of the universe and become the individuate being we experience ourselves to be. And if we were to choose to return to nature by way of suicide, we most likely couldn't do it. Instincts which we have no control over, which were built into our biology long before we even existed, will typically stop us. We--the conscious mind--only comprises maybe 50% of the brain (at most)--but the organism that evolution has worked arduously over eons to create is the whole body--90% of us is unconscious <-- and that's the part that persistently chooses life over death. <-- That's the part that God awaits, ready to embrace with open arms and say "welcome home".

If that's what God's love is, then above all else, we cannot say we even remotely understand it. What is the experience of being one with the universe like? Can anyone here honestly answer that? It might be like returning home to mama, it might be like remembering where we came from, it might be like recalling why there isn't a need to struggle in the game of individuation... but these are surely only shoddy metaphors at best.

But this does give us a bit of insight: God's love seems to have a lot to do with being itself--just existing--of being united in the whole. But as for what it is, it seems too far beyond my ability to comprehend.

Which reminds me, I wonder what counts as "unconditional". I like to think my love for my children is unconditional. Although one can entertain certain scenarios that put this to the test: what if I find out one day that my daughter really isn't mine, that maybe my ex. cheated on me, got pregnant, and simply let me believe the baby was mine. If I found this out about my daughter, would I love her any less? I hate to say it, but knowing this *might* effect my love for her. I doubt it would mean I would stop loving her, but maybe a little less? Or maybe not (thank God, I've never been in that situation, so I wouldn't know).

Alternatively we could say we are all adoptive entities [as we don’t participate in the making of our bodies], and your daughter does not belong to you or the mother, ever. so you should love whomsoever comes into your life in the manner of a daughter e.g. same for an orphan as for ‘your own’ daughter. I wouldn’t expect that of people of course.

Or maybe this: I love you for who you are. <-- Is that unconditional love? What if the person changes, like most of us do over time? Doesn't love require something to love?

I can get past a lot of aesthetic flaws in a woman if I loved her, but I have limits. Perhaps your concern is a matter of adaptation, we kinda freeze-frame people in the minds eye, and we have ideals and standards before we even met them. So we have a kind of distilled manakin of them and how they should be. Thus when they change beyond that mental model, you think they have changed or they are not the thing you loved. That’s just the aesthetics, personalities are more ambiguous and at no time set, you meet a new situation and you must react differently such to engage it. So how do we know how we are going to act, and hence how can we know what we or others are in any singular sense? People often decide someone has changed, when in reality an event has made them act differently.- so people are fluid and not rigid.

_

The truth is naked,Once it is written it is lost.Genius is the result of the entire product of man.The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas

Amorphos wrote:Alternatively we could say we are all adoptive entities [as we don’t participate in the making of our bodies], and your daughter does not belong to you or the mother, ever. so you should love whomsoever comes into your life in the manner of a daughter e.g. same for an orphan as for ‘your own’ daughter. I wouldn’t expect that of people of course.

Well, that might be what we "should" do, but a parent's love for his children hinges heavily on genetics.

I was asking myself the question: why do I love my daughter unconditionally? And the answer verily seemed to be: because she's my daughter. Then of course, the test for unconditionality came to mind: so what if she wasn't my daughter? <-- It was a test to see if a parent's love for their children could match God's love.

Amorphos wrote:I can get past a lot of aesthetic flaws in a woman if I loved her, but I have limits. Perhaps your concern is a matter of adaptation, we kinda freeze-frame people in the minds eye, and we have ideals and standards before we even met them. So we have a kind of distilled manakin of them and how they should be. Thus when they change beyond that mental model, you think they have changed or they are not the thing you loved. That’s just the aesthetics, personalities are more ambiguous and at no time set, you meet a new situation and you must react differently such to engage it. So how do we know how we are going to act, and hence how can we know what we or others are in any singular sense? People often decide someone has changed, when in reality an event has made them act differently.- so people are fluid and not rigid.

Then what does it mean to love a person unconditionally? To love a person no matter what? Who can tell me they'd love a person literally no matter what--like the person became violent and abusive--say they suffered a brain injury and lost the ability to act appropriately--suppose they became a serial killer.

phyllo wrote:I'm not sure how you can generalize it that much. How does a plant or bacteria or insect reject the universe?

At the least, the 'son' would have to be a conscious being who is able to make decisions.

I'm speaking as a pantheist. Also, I don't think of the separation of life from God at the level of individual bacteria or insects, etc.. I think of it as life in general, and life as a part of God trying to escape the rest.